Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 80 F.2d 939 - Sitterding v. Commissioner

Sitterding v. Commissioner’s Empirical Analysis

80 F.2d 939 · 1936

Citation profile

27
cited by 27 later decisions
January 2020
most recently cited

15 federal appellate · 1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently January 2020 · most notably Lashells' Estate v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (1953), Welp v. United States (1953)

15 federal appellate · 1 district ·

1401936194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Applies 26 U.S.C. § 22 · 26 U.S.C. § 23

Relies on Burnet v. Sanford & Brooks Co. · Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. · Burnet v. Thompson Oil & Gas Co. · Douglas v. Edwards · Evergreen Cemetery Ass'n v. Burnet

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The bookkeeping creates nothing, and the question must be decided according to proven and established facts.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““The matter must be considered in the light of the applicable probate and administration law. By this law the duty of the executors was to receive the principal of the estate, to inventory it, to ascertain the debts to be paid, including all taxes, and after paying all creditors and taxes and expenses of administration, to strike a balance from which should be paid specific or particular legacies, trust funds should be set up as required by the will, and final balance should be distributed to the residuary legatees, of whom the taxpayer was one. As this was not done during the year 1929, there is certainly nothing to show that the comparatively small . sums distributed to the taxpayer during that year were in excess of her principal interest as residuary legatee in the estate. It is not shown by the record what the total charges against the estate were, including debts to be paid. The estate has not been fully administered. It is not possible, therefore, to say that the distribution to the taxpayer was income and not merely an advance on account of the corpus. It is still undetermined what amount of corpus the residuary legatee will receive from the estate.” 80 F.2d at 941 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.